header-logo header-logo

15 February 2007 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A call for order

Health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving the hospital door, says Neil Allen

The psychiatric and legal professions are often uncomfortable bedfellows. One area of particular controversy concerns the re-admission of patients released into the community by mental health review tribunals. The detaining authorities will inevitably disagree with discharge decisions. Indeed, such is the fluctuating nature of mental disorder that episodes of acute illness following hospitalisation are not uncommon as patients react to the pressures of community life. However, due deference to clinical freedom must sometimes yield to legitimate fears over arbitrary detention. R (Care Principles Ltd) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others [2006] EWHC 3194 (Admin) serves as a timely reminder that health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving their hospital door.

The proceedings

Following his aggressive behaviour towards hostel staff and fellow residents, and threats to social workers, a young man with mild learning disabilities was detained in a medium-security hospital for psychiatric assessment. In the absence of a sufficient causal link between his conduct and mental disorder

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll